So did anyone upset by the New Yorker cover read the Obama article in the issue?

Just checking.

I got my issue in last night's mail (longtime loyal New Yorker subscriber here) and I'm reading the article about the physicist first, but there's a very lengthy article on how Chicago shaped Obama I'll read next.

I'm wondering whether the article is complimentary and that everyone upset about the cover won't even get to read the article because they're dismissing the whole magazine issue out of hand.

I don't ever weigh in on the "outrage du jour," but I have to say I'll get a kick out of everyone who gets upset over the COVER while the INSIDE ARTICLE is maybe what they should focus on and perhaps where they should express any outrage or concern.

For those non-New Yorker subscribers, here's the article:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza

The article, which seemed to take great pains to portray him as a typical, cynical politician had nothing to do with the cover. Had there been an article that addressed the smears the cartoon characterized, it made have made the poorly-executed satire easier to take. As it is, Obama got slammed coming and going in a supposedly "liberal" publication.

just about everything he's ever done, assigning duplicitous motives to his every breath.

It was a hit piece, imo.

I was amused by it, got the satire immediately, but can also see why people were upset about it. Here is why:

People are stupid ruled by their emotions. To expand: People's first impressions last, and seeing him portrayed as he was will overlay any article inside the magazine. Also, people have very short attentions and will get more of an impression from a picture than from having to read writing (on forums you see this by some who only read subject line and respond to that, not reading the message). This also goes along with people's emotions override their minds. They make an emotional decision, then seek the facts to back up those emotions.

I doubt that the cover persuaded anyone to be pro/anti Obama, but it could have helped solidify some negative emotions. However, getting this crap out in the open, openly addressed, made fun of, rather than quietly hoping no one will make it an issue, or becoming merely defensive, that is a good thing.

And the intent of those at the New Yorker has nothing to do with the fact that their satire blows big time.

But thanks for the link to the article.